Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Persecuting omega

I confess: I still don't get it. We write about things that make people angry: sometimes on purpose (u mad bro?), sometimes because the topic interests us. But few topics are as consistent in their ability to draw anger and trolling and bizarre visitors as the issue of sexual harassment and responses to it.

If I talk about my experiences training clients' employees in how to avoid sexual harassment, I draw nutters. If I talk about sites that discuss bad behavior towards women in gaming culture — great sites like Fat, Ugly, or Slutty — people get angry. Discussions of outing and vigorous more-speech remedies seem to be more controversial when the target is chosen for being a creeper rather than, say, a racist. Even the abstract subject of this post — the meta-examination of why the subject of harassment is so incendiary to some — generates some of the most vituperative comments we ever see here.

This attitude is common among low-ranking men who don't understand the socio-sexual hierarchy. They don't understand that by talking about the subjective realm of "sexual harassment" as if it is objective, they are usually taking a position that unfairly persecutes the lower-ranking men in society.

And just as the cruelest school bullies are those who are just above the lowest boys on the totem pole, the most clueless white knights are the gammas who have mastered their creepy instincts and don't see why everyone else doesn't do the same. Because they a) know they are at least potentially creepy, and, b) have managed to modify their behavior in a manner to control it, they believe that sexual harassment is objective, universal, and intentional.

None of those things are true.

You see, here is the observable fact of the matter. Men of sufficiently high socio-sexual status cannot sexually harass women. They simply cannot do it. A man of sufficiently high rank can, in public, grab a woman's ass, squeeze her breasts while making honking sounds, stick his tongue down her throat, sling her over his shoulder and haul her off to a bedroom, slide his hand down her pants and inside her underwear, or tell her to lift her skirt and turn around, without ever hearing a single word of protest.

Millions of women don't read 50 Shades of Grey because they so perfectly hate the idea of men ordering them around.

And a high-status man can do all of those things without having met her or even knowing what her name is. For example, compare the difference in the public reaction to direct complaints that Bill Clinton had raped various women to reports that Anthony Weiner had been sexting land whales.

Clinton not only raped and assaulted multiple women over the years, but inserted a cigar in an White House intern's body in the most power-imbalanced employment relationship that is even theoretically possible in the United States. He got a pass from the women and everyone else, with female journalists offering "one free grope" and volunteering head, simply because he is an alpha. Weiner, who is more of a Washington insider than Clinton was prior to his presidency, provokes considerable disgust for far lesser sexual offenses.

It's all about sexual dominance. The gamma can offend a woman by simply looking at her. The alpha not only won't offend that same woman by ordering her to lift her skirt and turn around, but the chances are very high that she will obey him even if she hasn't actually met him. Even if she won't obey on the spot, she will still laugh, slap his shoulder, and tell him "you're so bad!"

So, it is the intrinsically false perspective of the white knight that provokes anger and irritation from a wide range of men. The higher ranking men are not angry, they are merely expressing contempt for the mouthy gamma and his cluelessness. The lower-ranking men are angry at the unfairness of how they are targeted and castigated for behavior that is objectively less egregious than what they see their higher-ranking counterparts, and, for that matter, women, are permitted to do with impunity.

Lecturing creepers is, for the most part, bullying of omegas by gammas. It's wrong-headed and it's wrong. And it provokes anger for the same reason that most bullying does.

Consider, for example, the average sex scene in a SF/F novel written by a gamma male. Now reverse the sexes. I will bet that more than 50 percent of those sex scenes would qualify as "sexual harassment", if not sexual assault, if committed by a gamma or omega male.

Vox once again exposes the truth. You simply cannot sexually harass the willing. High ranking men will encounter nothing but consent and the possibility of sexual harassment won't even exist in their world. Only lower ranking men are capable of sexually harassing women.

I was debating with some women about Anthony Weiner and what he did wrong. As one woman put it, "nothing if he had looked like George Clooney." It's true. Women only revoke consent against lower ranking males.

The Sexual Harassment policies and laws suit me fine. Being a natural introvert, it allows me an excuse to not talk to co-workers unless I absolutely have to. Keeps things professional and allows me to work on my own.

But yes, gammas are nasty bullies when given any kind of authority. Unfortunately, they usually end up in family courts where they'll buy anything a wife says about her soon to be ex-husband. Or they are the sexual harassment police at scifi conventions.

The whole socio-sexual hierarchy should be codified into law and certain groups should be prevented from getting into certain government positions. Because some of them are predictably more dangerous than others.

The situation that really angers guys is when you herd a bunch of beta providers into a conference and let a gamma and/or a woman rip them a new one for sexual harassment. One that was particularly a problem for the troops was a session where the woman facilitator would ask the men if they found her clothes, hair, breasts, etc. attractive and then would get angry regardless of the answer while her grinning gamma counterpart would take notes on who responded and how they responded.

Consider, for example, the average sex scene in a SF/F novel written by a gamma male. Now reverse the sexes. I will bet that more than 50 percent of those sex scenes would qualify as "sexual harassment", if not sexual assault, if committed by a gamma or omega male

Yep, at least 90% of the sex scenes in sci-fi have the woman taking control, even to the point of rape. Gammas love to imagine this because it takes all the need for initiative and risk off their shoulders. It's too bad that decades of science fiction have set geeky young men up for failure in this regard. They fantasize that just being an awesomely competent engineer or book club member will spark some hot young thing to corner them and demand sex now, in the plainest of terms. What's ironic is that this is exactly the kind of thing that happens to higher alphas who have demonstrated their complete dominance. But the horse has to come before the cart.

One that was particularly a problem for the troops was a session where the woman facilitator would ask the men if they found her clothes, hair, breasts, etc. attractive and then would get angry regardless of the answer while her grinning gamma counterpart would take notes on who responded and how they responded.

Nice. If I had wanted to write a book lampooning modern idiocy, I could not have come up with such a ridiculous scenario.

The rise of the omega? Or more correctly implosion/explosion of the omega?

Is marriage an institution who's primary practical application is to dampen sexual competition? It gives lower ranking males and females more guarantees in the mating game. Whether it be lower status men having access to regular sex, or aging women not getting dumped for younger models. Im thinking of some guys I see in pool club who are likely getting none, use porn a lot, and have all but given up on anything else. Im thinking of my aunt who was left in her early 50's by husband, living on her own and not happily.

By opening up the free sexual market place you expose people to the often soul-crushing results of lack of sex, intimacy etc etc. While coercing people to stay in monogamous relationships has its personal drawbacks the social costs of this free market are far higher.

Prediction:

Destroy marriage as a social institution that reduces sexual competitionCriminalize sexual substitutes like pornography or prostitutionRamp up paranoia over assault and sexual harassment laws

I think political leaders are going to realize that the destruction of marriage has huge consequences, such as lack of male drive to work hard. Why would an omega drop out work hard if he isn't really invested in the world at its most fundamental level? Theres many other consequences I'm sure and they are all rooted in opening up sexual competition by ending the handicapping system that marriage is.

Regularly read this blog and a few others and its all come from here. Given that it is free I thank you very much. I will buy one of your books and a few others from the other sites as a token gesture. The one about atheism sounds interesting. Ive never been a religious person, but there seems to be an underlying consensus that religion or god is "made up" and that science is "truth". I don't see many good criticisms of those views out there.

Exhibit B: My alpha dad asks a big chested waitress if her breasts are real. This triggers a hearty conversation and the girl tells him her life aspirations...

Exhibit C:I have said and done some lewd things to women, their reactions ranges from nothing to positive. Queue gamma male (girl)friend who accuses me of being awkward or creepy. The Women's (plural) reaction is... nothing.

"And just as the cruelest school bullies are those who are just above the lowest boys on the totem pole, the most clueless white knights are the gammas who have mastered their creepy instincts and don't see why everyone else doesn't do the same."

That's a great point and one that I've wondered why hollywood has so consistently forgotten. I mean 40 years ago Hollywood remembered that bullies were often rejects themselves... but sometime in the 80s it was decided that the top tier should be portrayed as the bullies.

Thanks, I thought so. Most women who are swayed about anti-male unfairness seem to have sons.

I don't have sons, but I have two daughters. My concern with them is the backwards incentives. Women ruin their own lives because of state supported hypergamy, and never seem to realize what they've done or could have had.

@artisanaltoadshall yes, everyone here should know Isaiah 3:12. It is a given. The topic under discussion is gamma's hating on omegas. But really gammas are frustrated by anyone who doesn't see them as big and great as they think they are.

If you believe all people are essentially blank slates except for those poor folks born into traditional societies / bad socio-economic backgrounds its hard to understand the gestalt of different individuals. Thus the confusion on the part of the gammas why it is okay for some men to do abusive acts and improper for some to even make their face visible in the presence of women.

It is also hard for them to grasp that some parts of a person may be unchangable, and that some people just can't lead or direct.

I'm reminded of the male priesthood - it is not merely those who are male, but those who have that vocation who can be priests. The vocation is not codifiable in the same fashion as being male, but it is just as real a requirement. It is absolutely important that priests not be gammas or omegas. Anyone who cannot teach a woman cannot be a priest.

Plus this bullying stuff... it makes me think that the episcopaleans were reduced to a crop of gammas for ministers and they just simply buckled to the pressure of stronger women, letting them be pastors in their stead.

My mom intuited this by noting if women were leaders it meant men were bowing out and on strike or just not available.

Am aware of the subject, but think about asexual women who fit the gamma profile to put it in context: Middle-aged, overweight, unattractive, short haired butch-looking never-were's with and an angry feminist entitlement attitude. Now think about the omega shaming that can't be responded to when women do it... so when a male gamma does it the pot boils over and the omega's explode with rage.

If there is anyone an Omega doesn't mind hurting its a Gamma male. Being in the depressed social outcast role for some of my teenage years, I can tell you most of the fights I had were one-punch bouts of beating down someone who I'd now identify as being a Gamma.

Usually guys in the Alpha / Beta position were pretty nice to you, it didn't affect them that you were an untouchable. It was the Deltas to some degree but mainly the Gammas that were the worst. Key sign was the boy with girl friends, particularly a wide variety of them. (I don't mean romantic partners)

The hate for Gammas from Omegas is visceral and real... it's like the hate of the slave for the house-slave. There may be worse offenders but he is the most constant and nearest offender.

This post and some of the comments answered one question I've long had about my husband. He's got a couple of friends who are omegas -- very weird, full of rage, near-total outcasts in society -- but he has genuine affection for them. I react to them the way a woman typically reacts to omegas, with apprehension and a degree of revulsion, and couldn't understand why he didn't feel the same way. But he's not a gamma. Since gammas are more like women than men in key ways, it makes sense now why he's okay with them while I generally want to avoid them.

I remember once back in high school, I got to thinking about something a pastor said about Jesus seeking out outcasts. We had a little bible meeting on Wednesdays during lunch. We were always trying to get people to come to it, but who we really wanted were the high status students because getting a high profile convert I suppose seemed intrinsically desirable. Anyway, long story short, one day I went looking for omegas. I found a little gaggle of them in a remote corner of the school where they ate lunch everyday. I went down there and sat under this tall table against the wall. It was strange, I didn't even recognize some of them despite having presumably gone to school with them for years. They didn't say anything to me, but they kept casting sideways glances at me. They didn't seem angry. I saw one really tall, scrawny, greasy, sweatpants wearer approach an omega girl, hand her a note then dart away down the hall. That's omega game I suppose. I didn't end up asking them to come to our bible meeting. Not sure why. I should have. I guess I couldn't take them seriously.

That's a great point and one that I've wondered why hollywood has so consistently forgotten. I mean 40 years ago Hollywood remembered that bullies were often rejects themselves

Romy and Michele's High School Reunion is a good exception to this. Almost everyone in the movie is treated like crap by someone above her on the social totem pole, and turns right around and dumps it on the next person down without any awareness of what she's doing. The nastiest bully is probably the girl who has only one person below her to pick on.

I have long suspected, without any data backing me up that 90% of all sexual harassment claims are total BS. Mainly because it allows land whales to where form fitting cloths mind raping every male that fails to avert their eyes, yet comments overheard by a third party somehow qualify.

but he has genuine affection for them. I react to them the way a woman typically reacts to omegas

I picked up a couple college friends going through computer science that my wife is repulsed by. Her behavior is entirely emotional an devoid of rationality because they are objectively standup people.

And in the can't catch a break category one of them is now worth 8-10 million and he is still consider "creepy" even by women that know he is loaded.

Is marriage an institution who's primary practical application is to dampen sexual competition?

I've heard monogamy described as a deal between Rich men and Poor men (aka Alphas and Betas/Deltas) where the Alphas agree not to monopolize all the women and the Betas/Deltas agree not to stage a revolution and kill the Alphas.

Overall, it's a pretty good deal, but I suppose the 'losers' end up being Tier 2 women - those attractive enough to have been a concubine or secondary wife to an Alpha, but not quite able to make it into the primary slot. Under polygamy, they share an Alpha, while under monogamy they have a Beta all to themselves. Feral women would prefer sharing an Alpha.

But there's a caveat to that - they want to share a filthy rich Alpha. In barbarian cultures, the Alphas are indeed filthy rich as they monopolize the women, the money, and the power. Of course their cultures are poor and crapsack, but relative wealth is fine for the average golddigger.

Our transitional culture is difficult and unsatisfying for these Feral Sevens. They can get the Alphas in their pants alright, but wealth is still reasonably well spread and not very many of those Alphas can financially support a harem and mutliple litters of kids.

So please shed a tear for these poor unfortunate women, so close to their dream of being Lord Randypant's Secret Lover and raising his bastard son who will one day sieze his father's Dukedom from his rivals, giving her revenge on the girls who made fun of her in sixth grade for having freckles.

According to a book I'm reading marriage is a fabricated social structure that gives a father rights to his children. Where those rights are taken away, women become promiscuous, men unproductive, children criminals and everybody increasingly impoverished.

Who says the husband has to support them? Isaiah 4:1. Let them provide for themselves, they'll still be better off by consolidating housing and bills. One woman works inside the home, the others work outside the home. Cleanup after dinner is fast, many hands make for light work. Wife working within the home manages the children and household work. That job can be rotated between wives over time.

With four or five wives, the husband isn't going to be starved for sex because the women can't use sex as a weapon. The fact they're in competition for his attention means their value is lower and his is elevated: he's in the dominant position. Preselection bias kicks in and it's a legitimate case of plate-spinning within marriage.

I think women on the lower end of the economic scale, especially single or divorced mothers, would be most attracted to polygyny because it would substantially improve their standard of living and quality of life. Once they figure out they're really better off than with anything they could do on their own, they don't have any incentive to bail out. Dominant husband tends to mean attractive husband (if he can manage them well) and betas could probably succeed in that kind of situation if they just learn a few alpha behaviors.

If the historical records of the Mormons are correct, once women are able to appreciate the benefits of polygyny they prefer it to being in a monogamous marriage.

I think women on the lower end of the economic scale, especially single or divorced mothers, would be most attracted to polygyny because it would substantially improve their standard of living and quality of life"

By that logic they would be attracted to monogamy too, but they don't appear to be, judging by the ghetto dwellers.

Who said anything about legalization? Who cares what the State thinks? With respect to marriage, FTS. Patriarchy is a state of mind. The issue is to change the incentive structure of marriage. Once that's done, things will right themselves. If you'll notice, I said four or five. As the old Rabbi said: 'One is insufficient, two and they fight. Three and they take sides, four is just right.' My experience is that four or five is a lot easier than two (speaking of relationships, not polygynous marriage.)

@River

I was actually being morally serious. Understand the joke, just don't think it's funny.

I looked in at that blog post, read as many of the comments as I could stand (about 200-300 or so).

I have an anecdote about that shithat, or popehead person. I left a coupla comments on his blog, which he seemed to like. Then a bit later I left a comment or two warning about the known dangers of non-kin adoption. He, having adopted two Oriental kids, took umbrage at that, changed my comments to read, "I eat paste" and I suspect flagged my blog to Google which caused my blog to disappear for a while, until I screamed at the Google "help" people and they put it back. He also tried to ban me by IP address, but I just hung up the modem and re-dialled. Idiot didn't contemplate that I might be on dial-up. All in all, that was a very womanish performance on his part.

I think women on the lower end of the economic scale, especially single or divorced mothers, would be most attracted to polygyny because it would substantially improve their standard of living and quality of life.

There was an article in one of the British newspapers that say that those types of women are actually attracted to being 2nd wives of Muslim men in Britain as a means of lightening their financial load, and obtaining some level of security.

I think it was linked off instapundit at some point and was discussed on a couple MRA blogs, possibly even here.

Well our female US Senators have gotten their dander up over sexual harassment in the military, so now we have to go take all this idiotic training.

First problem encountered: how to distinguish between sexual harassment and sexual assault. First slide defined sexual assault is action, sexual harassment is merely verbal. Throw that away by the second slide, tho, when sexual harassment took up a form described as "verbal action". By the third slide and following ad infinitum we had case studies. Anecdotes. Situational ethics.

Upshot: nobody knows what in hell they're talking about trying to distinguish between sexual harassment and sexual assault. Vox is right, it is an impossible sliding standard.

Well, to be blunt, my observation about which women lose out in monogamy centers not on their rational assessment of their situation and future, but rather on their emotional, solipsistic response. There's no rational argument to be made against monogamy - it is demonstrably a superior cultural practice. Any rational woman would prefer it to polygamy.

But rational assessments are something only civilized women are capable of. Barbarian wenches, or feral ones, think with their tingles. They do strategically stupid things because they have poor impulse control and that bad boy over there is soooooooo charming...

With that in mind, I stand by my belief that nearly elite women - uncivilized ones mind you - lose the most in monogamy.

Low SMV women were never going to be in an alphas harem, and Betas would choose prostitutes over them, so discouraging alphas from having harems is no matter to those women. Neither culture gives them a chance to mate with a high ranking male.

High SMV women are able to land an Alpha as his primary woman, so monogamy doesn't limit their prospects at all - in fact it's probably a benefit to her because once she lands him, a monogamous society applies pressure on him to devote the majority of his resources to her. But monogamy or polygamy, a smoking hot 9/10 will have her Alpha either way.

It's the mid-range women, 6's and 7's, who lose out with monogamy. Alphas are discouraged from going slumming with them, so they're stuck marrying some Beta provider...

So what happens is that women use sexual harassment laws, not just to reject lower status males, but also to sexually humiliate them for daring to ask? Than the higher ranking males mock and bully the lower ones for being such rejects? Then the lower ranking males are not only rejected by women, they're sexually humiliated, and to add insult to injury, then bullied by other men?

So what happens is that women use sexual harassment laws, not just to reject lower status males, but also to sexually humiliate them for daring to ask? Than the higher ranking males mock and bully the lower ones for being such rejects? Then the lower ranking males are not only rejected by women, they're sexually humiliated, and to add insult to injury, then bullied by other men?

Yeah, that's about right. In a work environment the man is punished due to the legal climate. He gets fired over asking someone to coffee because not doing something about it somehow harms her and she will sue and win. But she'd welcome it from someone else. Something so insignificant requires that he get nuked.

It occurs to me that the removal of Aspergar's from the DSM is probably associated with the war against low status men because it had the potential to be something of a shield omegas could use against charges of sexual harassment.

But rational assessments are something only civilized women are capable of."

And they're only civilized by force. Monogamy was imposed on women so they couldn't wander off after a roaming alpha without severe consequences.

"Then the lower ranking males are not only rejected by women, they're sexually humiliated, and to add insult to injury, then bullied by other men?"

That's life in the matriarchy. But as the remnants of the patriarchy are bled down it will ease off. Men will realize there's nothing to be gained from working hard and everyone will descend into a hand-to-mouth existence. My goodness women are stupid.

... women use sexual harassment laws, not just to reject lower status males, but also to sexually humiliate them for daring to ask? Than the higher ranking males mock and bully the lower ones for being such rejects?

Well, slight disagreement. The men mocking them aren't really higher ranking. Alphas don't in general mock other men for being sexually rejected. If anything, an Alpha would probably feel some admiration for the guy making the attempt, and contempt for a woman issuing a nuclear rejection. Remember, Alphas are about taking action and risk. The sort of things Alphas will be contemptuous of are - mildly - Betas being pussywhipped and henpecked (i.e. not being rejected but then failing the maintenance shit tests), and to a much greater degree, the incessant sniveling of Gammas.

As Vox said, it's the contemptible Gammas who try to pile onto the guys getting nuclear rejections (and filing a sexual harassment claim is pretty damn nuclear). A Gamma is not higher ranking than a Beta or Delta. In their own minds they are, but I suspect the women filing the harassment claims would sooner sleep with the guy they filed the claim against than the GammaKnight spouting taunts from behind her skirts.

"That's a great point and one that I've wondered why hollywood has so consistently forgotten. I mean 40 years ago Hollywood remembered that bullies were often rejects themselves... but sometime in the 80s it was decided that the top tier should be portrayed as the bullies. "

Damn right, Nate, on both accounts. The only film I can think off right now which portrays an accurate bully would be Back to the Future, since Biff Tannen was never shown as a jock and though people didn't dare cross him, he wasn't well liked either, not to mention girls weren't exactly flocking around him.

"That's a great point and one that I've wondered why hollywood has so consistently forgotten. I mean 40 years ago Hollywood remembered that bullies were often rejects themselves... but sometime in the 80s it was decided that the top tier should be portrayed as the bullies. "

Damn right, Nate, on both accounts. The only film I can think off right now which portrays an accurate bully would be Back to the Future, since Biff Tannen was never shown as a jock and though people didn't dare cross him, he wasn't well liked either, not to mention girls weren't exactly flocking around him.

I would hazard a guess at two possibilities:

1. Starting in the 80s, more screenplays were written by bitter gammas (e.g. Revenge of the Nerds).

2. For those movies that actually celebrated alpha bullying, it might be due to the rise of the feminine imperative. Women absolutely cannot stand losers. Just read the female comments in this thread. Maybe alphas bullying lesser boys was just Hollywood's extremely competent marketers realizing here was a way of giving girls what they wanted.

3. Maybe it's another example of Apex Fallacy, but in reverse: attributing to alphas traits that would be common in... more common men.

Well, to be blunt, my observation about which women lose out in monogamy centers not on their rational assessment of their situation and future, but rather on their emotional, solipsistic response. There's no rational argument to be made against monogamy - it is demonstrably a superior cultural practice. Any rational woman would prefer it to polygamy.

Why? Polygamy increases female choice. It is only a truly rational societal limitation to the 95% (or the 99.5%?) of men who are less than alpha. Even in a polygamous society, polygamy is not mandatory nor is it ever practiced by the majority, so it still leaves the playing field wide open for women who want a monogamous relationship. But for those who absolutely *must* have an alpha, this lowers the bar, since they don't have to be his one and only.

Truth be told, the top tier alphas have always been polygamous, whether the society they live in is monogamous or not. And I suspect they always will be, in some way or another (many short-term relationships, flings, mistresses...), except for that very small percentage who have serious religious convictions and an oversized sense of sacrifice. It's rare. Yes, we call ourselves a monogamous society, but even those alphas who settle down with families and stay faithful are usually reformed dogs with a long list of women in their wake.

But rational assessments are something only civilized women are capable of. Barbarian wenches, or feral ones, think with their tingles. They do strategically stupid things because they have poor impulse control and that bad boy over there is soooooooo charming...

With that in mind, I stand by my belief that nearly elite women - uncivilized ones mind you - lose the most in monogamy.

Again... why? Alpha males are much less likely to kick a woman out if they know they don't have to in order to have another, and another.

Low SMV women were never going to be in an alphas harem, and Betas would choose prostitutes over them, so discouraging alphas from having harems is no matter to those women. Neither culture gives them a chance to mate with a high ranking male.

High SMV women are able to land an Alpha as his primary woman, so monogamy doesn't limit their prospects at all - in fact it's probably a benefit to her because once she lands him, a monogamous society applies pressure on him to devote the majority of his resources to her. But monogamy or polygamy, a smoking hot 9/10 will have her Alpha either way.

It's the mid-range women, 6's and 7's, who lose out with monogamy. Alphas are discouraged from going slumming with them, so they're stuck marrying some Beta provider...

Not that this should be construed as advocating polygamy, but your reasoning strikes me more as rationalization. The fact is, monogamy benefits men--especially the average man--first and foremost. It doesn't provide alphas anything they can't already have, and it certainly doesn't promise more for the omegas. For women, it simply increases their level of choice. So no, I don't think it is entirely irrational for women to accept the concept. What is irrational is for women to spend their lives in fem-powered serial monogamy, constantly pursuing the next hottest guy, because the one before him just left her in the dust. What we have today is the worst of both worlds.

Monogamy absolutely does provide Alphas something they don't already have - a certain amount of peace. They don't have to worry about another Alpha coming along and stealing their women, perhaps killing them in the process.

Monogamy limits sexual competition, puts a certain cap on it. It's still there, but moderated and confined primarily to the young. Monogamy allows people to dial down the sexual competition after marriage by establishing expectations that they're out of the game then, they've cashed in their chips and declared victory.

Chimps are far more sexually competitive than humans. Do you know how an Alpha Chimp dies? It's not pretty.

Alpha males are much less likely to kick a woman out if they know they don't have to in order to have another, and another.

That's an odd notion of monogamy you have there, where a guy is allowed to kick his current wife out in order to upgrade. I'm talking about real monogamy, not the serial monogamy that feminists like to think about. 'till death do us part...

the top tier alphas have always been polygamous,

Yes, but to what degree? In a society that frowns on polygamy, their behavior is moderated. They still have mistresses etc., but less so and less blatantly than in a sexual carnival atmosphere like we have today.

Why? Polygamy increases female choice.

They have more bad choices, sure. Rational women will prefer to have a smaller number of better long-term choices. Monogamy produces a far more stable and productive society. Societies where monogamy is the norm have significantly better standards of living that ones where it is not. In large part because a bunch of the energy that free-for-all societies spend on sexual competition is instead channeled into productivity.

Yes, but to what degree? In a society that frowns on polygamy, their behavior is moderated. They still have mistresses etc., but less so and less blatantly than in a sexual carnival atmosphere like we have today.

You confuse polygamy (actually polygyny) with barbarous societies that have constantly shifting sexual partners and little long-term commitment. Notice in my post above I said that today we have the worst of both worlds. We don't have polygyny, nor do we have real monogamy. What we have now is constantly shifting, low-commitment, but high-risk (for men) relationships. Women can pull the plug on the relationship in a number of ways without suffering any real societal judgment, and actually enjoy a form of polyandry, since they can divorce a man, but keep his financial support for the rest of their lives while living with another man. Meanwhile, the more commitment men put into a relationship, the higher their risk (financial and otherwise).

Due to the silliness of our laws and policies and the delusional nature of women, the safest approach to sexual gratification for a man is not monogamy or polygyny but to have a constantly rotating list of short-term flings. Sad, but true. Even if a man doesn't marry, but shacks up with only one woman for a few years, he accrues the financial and legal risk of a husband, and might well find himself paying to support another man's child for the rest of his life. We have done all this purely in order to have the appearance of modern liberal morality, constantly playing up to, and appeasing one shrieking voice after another, and now we are left with a mess that will take several generations (and probably at least one world war) to fix.

This--rampant promiscuity and the risk attributed to marriage--is the real sign of a weak and poor society, much more than societies which allow polygyny but keep strict requirements on commitment. Whatever you can say about the Mormons, they certainly flourished economically just as much as the surrounding American monogamous society. Our current model, and the increasing abandonment of any marriage or commitment at all is what really bodes ill for America's economic future.